Support NeoGAF

[ReBurn]

You’re all over the place here, I never once said the Bungie deal was a forever deal. The point is there was no need for a deal. Wish I hadn’t brought it up but it was the easiest example to help explain a multiplatform publisher remaining multiplatform after being bought by a platform holder. Bungie are free to publish where they want.

This was all clearly explained by both parties when the deal was finalised.

I'm not all over the place. I've been consistent on this topic across multiple posts ever since the Bungie acquisition was finalized.

It isn't the easiest example to explain anything related to this acquisition because it's a terrible example due to being completely unrelated. You can't say that Bungie has kept new releases multi-platform without a 10 year agreement because Bungie haven't released anything new since they were acquired. Nothing has happened since Bungie was acquired to prove or disprove anything they said. Yet you hold this up as some salient point.

You also can't say that what you are claiming was clearly explained by both parties when the Bungie acquisition was finalized since you're clearly misrepresenting what was said. It may be clear but you don't understand it. You seem to believe that multi-platform means omni-platform. A game can be multI-platform without being on Xbox. COD is multi-platform and it isn't on Switch. It's a simple concept.

Then you tried to say that I claimed they were both lying. I never said that at all. You tried to twist what I said, but it isn't what I said. If Bungie releases a new game and it doesn't come to Xbox they wouldn't be lying as long as it was on PS5 and one other platform. Say PC, which it likely would be at a minimum. Sony and Bungie can still be telling the truth even if future Bungie games skip Xbox, and it's perfectly fine if their games skip Xbox because they never committed to publishing their new games on Xbox in the first place So your quip about "let's have this conversation when their next game releases" is silly, as Xbox support wasn't ever a thing they committed to.

 

[jumpship]

Sony hasn't shown us anything of what they will actually do with Bungie. All we have is what they've said. We have NO proof they will actually let business continue unchanged. We have seen what you describe though with Xbox and Minecraft without any formal perpetual contract.

There’s no proof yet because Bungie haven’t released any new games since joining Sony. Though regulators would have had a detailed view of the deal before approving it. Keeping games multiplatform would have helped the process just like your Minecraft example.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

Cut him some slack. He's been pre occupied keeping us informed of the latest XSS deals



I'll pass. He lost material credibility months ago when he used his "lawyer math" logic to explain why Activision's dip in stock price was not indicative market skepticism of the deal going through. The idea of many his viewers buying into such an absurd and illogical concept makes me nauseous to this day.

I mean, he makes a mistake by not setting a floor based on first the price before the announcement and then two at least a reduction in value based on the overall market, the industry, and similarly performing peers.

For ex/ If I thought there was a 0 percent chance the deal goes through, the price I'm willing to pay for Activision's stock isn't 0 dollars based on a 95 dollar buyout. It's still based on the minimum value of what I think the Activision stock is worth.

For those quoting Pacther's confidence that the FTC would lose in court, they won't be the only ones and some countries will follow suit here. ABK is going to be in court for potentially years over this, meanwhile, the market will correct based on the value of the stock for what its worth and eventually Microsoft and Activision will have to decide whether they want to fight court battles worldwide when they aren't likely to prevail in all of them and it only takes one to block the deal.

FTC sued to stop Nvidia and Arm and didn't even make it through phase 2 of the CMA investigation before nvidia said "no mas".

The reality is that Microsoft is going to get cold feet about spending 70 billion dollars on Activision going into a recession when they aren't assured they'll come out with them.

M&A is being rejected by regulators at a record rate

In Washington, regulators are scuttling deals like it’s nobody’s business. Perhaps, it isn’t.

www.cnbc.com

Pacther acting like the FTC is weak is hilarious.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

I'm not all over the place. I've been consistent on this topic across multiple posts ever since the Bungie acquisition was finalized.

It isn't the easiest example to explain anything related to this acquisition because it's a terrible example due to being completely unrelated. You can't say that Bungie has kept new releases multi-platform without a 10 year agreement because Bungie haven't released anything new since they were acquired. Nothing has happened since Bungie was acquired to prove or disprove anything they said. Yet you hold this up as some salient point.

You also can't say that what you are claiming was clearly explained by both parties when the Bungie acquisition was finalized since you're clearly misrepresenting what was said. It may be clear but you don't understand it. You seem to believe that multi-platform means omni-platform. A game can be multI-platform without being on Xbox. COD is multi-platform and it isn't on Switch. It's a simple concept.

Then you tried to say that I claimed they were both lying. I never said that at all. You tried to twist what I said, but it isn't what I said. If Bungie releases a new game and it doesn't come to Xbox they wouldn't be lying as long as it was on PS5 and one other platform. Say PC, which it likely would be at a minimum. Sony and Bungie can still be telling the truth even if future Bungie games skip Xbox, and it's perfectly fine if their games skip Xbox because they never committed to publishing their new games on Xbox in the first place So your quip about "let's have this conversation when their next game releases" is silly, as Xbox support wasn't ever a thing they committed to.

Didn't they just release Witch Queen multiplatform? Including Xbox?

 

[ReBurn]

Didn't they just release Witch Queen multiplatform? Including Xbox?

Witch Queen is still Destiny 2, is it not?

 

[Mibu no ookami]

Witch Queen is still Destiny 2, is it not?

When you're looking at a GaaS an expansion is the equivalent of an individual game release.

 

[ChiefDada]

I mean, he makes a mistake by not setting a floor based on first the price before the announcement and then two at least a reduction in value based on the overall market, the industry, and similarly performing peers.

For ex/ If I thought there was a 0 percent chance the deal goes through, the price I'm willing to pay for Activision's stock isn't 0 dollars based on a 95 dollar buyout. It's still based on the minimum value of what I think the Activision stock is worth.

Precisely. And if he used this correct approach, then we could extrapolate that the market assumed a ~30% chance that the deal would close, assuming $65 pre announcement price was fair proxy for value. But of course that would also mean his argument/position goes up in flames.

 

[SenjutsuSage]

I don't believe 3rd parties will abandon Xbox so they need to be bought so Xbox gets those games.

I know Sony is the market leader but it doesn't mean that Xbox is so weak that it can't compete with them. To suggest Xbox is weak is ridiculous at this point.

Anyways there are other ways for Microsoft to become stronger as a competitor. Buying huge muktiplatform publishers isn't the only option. I know Sony didn't get to where they are by doing that. Maybe Microsoft should do something similar? I certainly know they are capable of doing that if what they want is to sell more consoles than Sony.

And to answer your question I don't need an Xbox to enjoy Microsoft games. I'll definitely build a new PC once prices drop. At the moment I can't say the same about Sony games on PC and some of the ports are just bad.

Thanks for the correction. A great gaming PC is precisely an example of owning multiple platforms so as to not limit your options. I shouldn't have said just console, as I really don't see Xbox as limited to consoles. Xbox also means PC and has ever since Xbox Play Anywhere.

I definitely also agree with the point that I wouldn't go so far as to say Xbox is weak because it's not true. It's just that even thinking Xbox is in a great position, I still think it can make real good use of an extra boost or edge. I believe the industry needs for it to get even stronger and more competitive than it already is next to PlayStation. That's not to say that if Xbox were to stay exactly where it is today with the current trajectory for big game releases and game pass day one releases, not factoring in Activision Blizzard as part of Xbox in the equation at all, Xbox as a brand will somehow be in trouble. That's not what I'm saying at all, but I feel the industry needs an even stronger Xbox than what I feel is an already strong Xbox for long-term industry viability reasons.

I see acquisitions like Bethesda and Activision for Xbox as game industry checks and balances. Sony more or less built its empire the same exact way, just in smaller bites. But they were bites at the acquisition pie nonetheless bankrolled by Sony's own extensive financial resources that were well above what their competition could achieve. People forget because Microsoft is such a large and valuable company that Sony is also a company with historically deep pockets who has almost certainly wielded that as a clear advantage against its competitors for decades. Sony's money has been every bit as instrumental to playstation's success as its marketing, partnerships, and game development efforts, all of which took serious money to do at the level Sony has been doing it. Publishers are nothing more than groups of studios with centralized leadership. The industry has also changed dramatically in ways (as a direct result of competition) that Microsoft must adapt to.

It isn't as easy to follow Sony's path to success where there was a lot less direct competition for a lot of the games Sony received as defacto exclusives from 3rd parties back in the day, all the while having less direct threats as they slowly remove important development studios off the map by way of acquisition. Microsoft can't afford to take as long building as Sony did back when it was far easier for Sony to just pick off whatever they liked whenever. 3rd party guaranteed exclusives for Playstation built Playstation to the monster it is today. Without those 3rd party exclusive hits in the ps1 and ps2 days, playstation isn't what it is today, even with its first-party successes. Not every game was a monster like GTA 3 or San Andreas, but they didn't need to be. The lineup of amazing games that were available to Playstation only or enjoyed periods of timed exclusivity on Playstation are all well known. Metal Gear Solid, Final Fantasy VII, Dragon Quest VII, Tekken, Resident Evil etc.

With Activision, I don't believe it to be just about the IP that Xbox will get, but the studios, the tech and the tools, and the raw talent and manpower that comes with Activision Blizzard. Then there's the financial side. You might say, "why should a fan care about that?" And the answer is simple: the more money coming Microsoft's way from these gaming investments, the better Xbox and Game Pass is likely to become. Even if it doesn't materially become better, it at least makes the interesting things they're doing with Game Pass a whole lot more sustainable long-term. This should not be confused to mean I already believe they can sustain it long-term, but it doesn't hurt for it to become easier.

For example, more than a few times people have rolled their eyes whenever Phil said that their biggest (or one of their biggest) motivating factor for this purchase was tied to King and mobile. People laugh that off to this day. However, not too many understand just how much money the mobile side of Activision Blizzard is bringing in for the company. The first half of 2022, King on mobile generated more money than either blizzard or activision.

$1.36 billion for king vs $1.31 billion for Activision and $601 million for Blizzard.

Now when you completely separate console and PC vs mobile, mobile beats console and PC combined.

$1.63 billion for mobile vs $1.59 billion for console and PC.

So yea, I like the idea of what Microsoft is doing. Now should they attempt to acquire another huge publisher after this, then they would seriously be pushing their luck, but I don't see another couple of big studios as being off the table. I personally see Microsoft getting all studios and IP square sold to Embracer. I also certainly don't see Japanese publishers as off the table, but they're not touching a Ubisoft/EA/Take Two after Activision.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

Precisely. And if he used this correct approach, then we could extrapolate that the market assumed a ~30% chance that the deal would close, assuming $65 pre announcement price was fair proxy for value. But of course that would also mean his argument/position goes up in flames.

Also percentages don't work like that either. It ignores opportunity cost.

The riskier something is the less likely you are to do it. Each percentage point isn't necessarily equivalent to 1:1 dollars.

Ex/ I'll give you a billion dollars if you play russian roulette but there is a 0 percent chance you will die (basically the gun is empty. You'll take this every time.

If I say there is a 16 percent chance you'll die, is it still worth it to you? What if I up it to 2 billion dollars? Is that enough to double the chance you'll take the deal?

Okay what if we up the chance to a 50% chance you'll die but we've increased it to 4 billion dollars?

I think most people would take the 100% for 1 billion, but wouldn't take the 50% for 4 billion or even 50 billion.

At some point you once you reach a low enough confidence in the deal going through, it just makes more sense to put your money elsewhere.

 

[feynoob]

Again, it seems the problem of this deal is cloud gaming. FTC legal case might be around this area.
R reksveks this is what the ftc would focus right?

Microsoft’s Activision Deal Hangs on Long-Shot FTC Accord Team Biden Hates

Microsoft Corp.’s best chance to win approval for its $69 billion Activision Blizzard Inc. deal from US regulators is to persuade the Biden administration to accept a settlement in which the Xbox maker pledges it won’t withhold its popular titles from rivals.

www.bloomberg.com

Antitrust officials in the UK and Australia have raised concerns the takeover would give Microsoft an overwhelming advantage in cloud gaming, a nascent industry. That's an area of particular sensitivity for Federal Trade Commission Chair Lina Khan, who earlier this year sued to block Meta Platforms Inc. from acquiring a popular fitness app to gain an edge in the fledgling virtual reality market.

Although Khan hasn't commented specifically on the Activision deal, she said at an October conference that the FTC is focusing on ways digital platforms use mergers to maintain their dominance during periods of technical transitions.

"Right now we are seeing that period of technological transition -- be it in the context of the cloud or voice assistants or virtual reality," Khan said. "We have to be especially vigilant across the board, but particularly in the merger context."

Microsoft said it has offered a proposal that would keep Call of Duty on the Playstation for the next 10 years. But that kind of a settlement might not placate regulators, said Bloomberg Intelligence analyst Jennifer Rie.

"This is a deal that needs behavioral concessions and the FTC is not accepting behavioral concessions," Rie said. "They don't have any other choice but to sue."

Idas might provide us more info this weekend. So sit tight everyone.

 

[jumpship]

I'm not all over the place. I've been consistent on this topic across multiple posts ever since the Bungie acquisition was finalized.

It isn't the easiest example to explain anything related to this acquisition because it's a terrible example due to being completely unrelated. You can't say that Bungie has kept new releases multi-platform without a 10 year agreement because Bungie haven't released anything new since they were acquired. Nothing has happened since Bungie was acquired to prove or disprove anything they said. Yet you hold this up as some salient point.

You also can't say that what you are claiming was clearly explained by both parties when the Bungie acquisition was finalized since you're clearly misrepresenting what was said. It may be clear but you don't understand it. You seem to believe that multi-platform means omni-platform. A game can be multI-platform without being on Xbox. COD is multi-platform and it isn't on Switch. It's a simple concept.

Then you tried to say that I claimed they were both lying. I never said that at all. You tried to twist what I said, but it isn't what I said. If Bungie releases a new game and it doesn't come to Xbox they wouldn't be lying as long as it was on PS5 and one other platform. Say PC, which it likely would be at a minimum. Sony and Bungie can still be telling the truth even if future Bungie games skip Xbox, and it's perfectly fine if their games skip Xbox because they never committed to publishing their new games on Xbox in the first place So your quip about "let's have this conversation when their next game releases" is silly, as Xbox support wasn't ever a thing they committed to.

Yep no Bungie games have released since the buyout. So there’s no proof either way. Saying that, I read through the info released when the Bungie was finalised in fact was surprised it was available and transparent about what will happen going forward. It appears written to help calm any feeling of anyone missing out on future Bungie games going forward. Even stressing there desire to maintain and grow the community. If you read the information and still seem convinced Xbox players will miss out then give it another read.

 

[feynoob]

I see acquisitions like Bethesda and Activision for Xbox as game industry checks and balances.

The heck is going with people for coming up with these absurd notion. That is not what a check and balance means.
Some of you guys need to lay down the smoke a bit.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

Thanks for the correction. A great gaming PC is precisely an example of owning multiple platforms so as to not limit your options. I shouldn't have said just console, as I really don't see Xbox as limited to consoles. Xbox also means PC and has ever since Xbox Play Anywhere.

I definitely also agree with the point that I wouldn't go so far as to say Xbox is weak because it's not true. It's just that even thinking Xbox is in a great position, I still think it can make real good use of an extra boost or edge. I believe the industry needs for it to get even stronger and more competitive than it already is next to PlayStation. That's not to say that if Xbox were to stay exactly where it is today with the current trajectory for big game releases and game pass day one releases, not factoring in Activision Blizzard as part of Xbox in the equation at all, Xbox as a brand will somehow be in trouble. That's not what I'm saying at all, but I feel the industry needs an even stronger Xbox than what I feel is an already strong Xbox for long-term industry viability reasons.

I see acquisitions like Bethesda and Activision for Xbox as game industry checks and balances. Sony more or less built its empire the same exact way, just in smaller bites. But they were bites at the acquisition pie nonetheless bankrolled by Sony's own extensive financial resources that were well above what their competition could achieve. People forget because Microsoft is such a large and valuable company that Sony is also a company with historically deep pockets who has almost certainly wielded that as a clear advantage against its competitors for decades. Sony's money has been every bit as instrumental to playstation's success as its marketing, partnerships, and game development efforts, all of which took serious money to do at the level Sony has been doing it. Publishers are nothing more than groups of studios with centralized leadership. The industry has also changed dramatically in ways (as a direct result of competition) that Microsoft must adapt to.

It isn't as easy to follow Sony's path to success where there was a lot less direct competition for a lot of the games Sony received as defacto exclusives from 3rd parties back in the day, all the while having less direct threats as they slowly remove important development studios off the map by way of acquisition. Microsoft can't afford to take as long building as Sony did back when it was far easier for Sony to just pick off whatever they liked whenever. 3rd party guaranteed exclusives for Playstation built Playstation to the monster it is today. Without those 3rd party exclusive hits in the ps1 and ps2 days, playstation isn't what it is today, even with its first-party successes. Not every game was a monster like GTA 3 or San Andreas, but they didn't need to be. The lineup of amazing games that were available to Playstation only or enjoyed periods of timed exclusivity on Playstation are all well known. Metal Gear Solid, Final Fantasy VII, Dragon Quest VII, Tekken, Resident Evil etc.

With Activision, I don't believe it to be just about the IP that Xbox will get, but the studios, the tech and the tools, and the raw talent and manpower that comes with Activision Blizzard. Then there's the financial side. You might say, "why should a fan care about that?" And the answer is simple: the more money coming Microsoft's way from these gaming investments, the better Xbox and Game Pass is likely to become. Even if it doesn't materially become better, it at least makes the interesting things they're doing with Game Pass a whole lot more sustainable long-term. This should not be confused to mean I already believe they can sustain it long-term, but it doesn't hurt for it to become easier.

For example, more than a few times people have rolled their eyes whenever Phil said that their biggest (or one of their biggest) motivating factor for this purchase was tied to King and mobile. People laugh that off to this day. However, not too many understand just how much money the mobile side of Activision Blizzard is bringing in for the company. The first half of 2022, King on mobile generated more money than either blizzard or activision.

$1.36 billion for king vs $1.31 billion for Activision and $601 million for Blizzard.

Now when you completely separate console and PC vs mobile, mobile beats console and PC combined.

$1.63 billion for mobile vs $1.59 billion for console and PC.

So yea, I like the idea of what Microsoft is doing. Now should they attempt to acquire another huge publisher after this, then they would seriously be pushing their luck, but I don't see another couple of big studios as being off the table. I personally see Microsoft getting all studios and IP square sold to Embracer. I also certainly don't see Japanese publishers as off the table, but they're not touching a Ubisoft/EA/Take Two after Activision.

that's kind of ridiculous on so many levels.

Sony didn't buy their way into the industry. They did buy Psygnosis, but that wasn't a huge factor in their success in the industry.

Microsoft has really had almost an equivalent amount of time in the industry. The PS1 came out in essentially 1995 and the OG Xbox came out in 2002 only 7 years later.

Microsoft has since been in the industry for 20 years. We've seen companies rise and fall in the industry in shorter time spans. Sony for example became the market leader within its first generation in the market, where market leaders like Sega were out within 7 years afterward.

The idea that this is the best way Microsoft could spend 70 billion dollars to enrich the industry is a bit of a joke too. It's actually a terrible investment dollar for dollar and reflects how Microsoft is trying to rush their way toward a more prominent position after playing third fiddle for two decades.

 

[Crispy Gamer]

I haven't speculated about anything. You have. You said that the Bungie acquisition is an example of a forever deal where a business can remain unchanged without having to sign a 10 year contract. I didn't say Sony and Bungie were lying, I'm saying you misrepresented what was publicly stated. I'm saying there has been no commitment that future Bungie games will remain on all of the platforms they're on now. They've only stated that they will be focusing on live-service games and that those games will remain multiplatform. You can't say that they committed to keeping future Bungie releases on Xbox because they've said no such thing.

Does that mean Bungie won't bring future games to Xbox? Who cares? It's not relevant to the topic at hand and there has never been any commitment to do so. Sony and Bungie can put their games where it makes strategic sense to do so. The Bungie acquisition is more like the Zenimax acquisition than this one. Microsoft committed to keeping Bethesda games multi-platform and they did. Existing games stayed pretty much where they were and you can still buy and play them on PlayStation. But for future games it turns out that PS5 isn't one of the platforms in the Bethesda multi-platform strategy, it's just Xbox and PC at the moment. It was technically true that Bethesda games would remain on multiple platforms but people are still accusing Microsoft of lying about it.

Q. Bungie has future games in development, will they now become PlayStation exclusives?
No. We want the worlds we are creating to extend to anywhere people play games. We will continue to be self-published, creatively independent, and we will continue to drive one, unified Bungie community.

This is on Bungie's website so your statement is factually incorrect there was no live service distinction and I hate to be that guy but Microsoft was extra cagey with the Bethesda purchase about future PlayStation releases so it's not the same, Bungie has been very clear that they will remain multiplatform and ironically it's precisely the reason Microsoft didn't purchase them when they had a chance to before Sony did because they wanted Bungie's future content to be exclusive again I think it's weird nobody talks about that, if I remember correctly it was Jez who spilled the beans in a thread tweet about the negotiations.

 

[IFireflyl]

I'm keeping to the topic of the thread. I suppose if you want to dredge up things MS did in the 90s you could obviously start a thread and go to town. This acquisition does not harm normal gaming consumers. There is now even potential Switch customers to get games they aren't now. This deal is bigger than Sony.

Microsoft's response to the CMA a few days ago:

The addition of Activision’s content to Game Pass is good for gamers and would not be possible without the Merger. If Game Pass is more attractive to gamers, it makes Xbox which is at third place, more competitive against PlayStation and Switch, and expands the overall gaming market.

Source: https://assets.publishing.service.g...rosoft_s_response_to_the_Issues_Statement.pdf

Microsoft flat out stated that they plan to use Game Pass to get a leg up on Sony and Nintendo. There is absolutely no chance for Nintendo Switch users to get these games unless Nintendo wants to allow Game Pass on the Switch (which would not be beneficial to Nintendo at all).

 

[feynoob]

We will continue to be self-published, creatively independent, and we will continue to drive one, unified Bungie community.

That is all that matters. Their games wont be exclusive, if this what they have to say about themselves.

 

[3liteDragon]

Activision Sinks on Concern US Will Block Microsoft’s $69 Billion Deal

www.bloomberg.com

“An FTC block has been mostly, but not entirely, priced into the spread,” said Aaron Glick, a merger arbitrage specialist at Cowen & Co. “Many investors were holding out hope that Microsoft’s goodwill on the Hill would lead the FTC to clear the deal.”

The market is pricing in roughly 40% odds of the deal successfully closing, based on the assumption that the stock would be trading at $60 should it fail, Glick said.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

It is not a regulators job to prevent 'harm' to corporations. A company offering superior options to customers is part of competition. If they can find a law being broken then fine. So far there has been no evidence of laws being broken by this acquisition. That is what matters.

In what way does Microsoft buying ABK provide a superior option for customers? How do you quantify that? If it only results in the same games that ABK would have made anyway staying independent, at the same quality they made while independent, then the only way it can be quantified as providing a superior option is by significantly subsidizing the costs putting them in a subscription service.

Which then brings up the question of how is Microsoft able to subsidize the inclusion of games like COD into GamePass considering the type of revenue it normally pulls in, and the effect it being in a subscription service that is already heavily subsidized (via users using MS Reward points, free trails, $1 conversions etc.) can have on that revenue. If a company is willing to risk severely undercutting an IP that can generate $800 million in only a few days, but putting it in a subscription service for "free" (or at least where the ARPU is much lower than it'd be expected for the # of subscribers), then doesn't that indicate the company leveraging cash flow advantages in other divisions to offset those losses?

Because that starts to work right back around to other talking points surrounding the acquisition that have been instances of expressed concern in the past.

MS always claimed 6/23 for closure for the deal. People should actually pay attention to the details of the transaction.

Yes, I'm aware of that and agree that was always the realistic likely conclusion date for the deal. But that didn't stop some in the media from running with other dates for random reasons.

Big bad Sony doing some flexing to stop small poor 18x larger Microsoft from purchasing a supplier.

It's almost like regulators having a very long history of anti-trust issues with Microsoft is playing absolutely no part in this. Or how Microsoft just finished buying a $8B software supplier (Bethesda) abd the first thing they did afterwards was stopping all their franchises from ever going into Playstation. It's like they really think regulators have no mind of their own.

They're trying to paint all this as a Sony vs. Microsoft when the regulators' job is to act in the interests of consumers vs. monopolies.

Yeah, the regulators are just doing their jobs here. What's disgusting is there have been several people, including big media types, basically threatening Sony & regulators to pass the deal..."or else". Painting the $70 billion as a proverbial loaded gun, or threatening all the Japanese publishers MS could take from Sony (which would affect Nintendo, but these people don't think that far), or Microsoft buying up all the 3P games as exclusives (something they kept saying Sony was doing, yet if so then we would've seen quite a lot more 3P exclusives for PS platforms like SF6, Tekken 8, RE4 Remake etc. Which just tells me those rumors back in 2020 were BS and fearmongering to either push support for or validate after the fact MS's announced acquisition of Zenimax).

Which tells you a lot about them. They can't picture anything Microsoft can do for themselves IF this deal happens to fail, that is just wholly beneficial to Microsoft & Xbox, without also having that thing cripple or damage Sony. Because either way that's what some of the people making these weird speculations (borderline hilarious threats) actually want: to them the deal isn't so much about what it can do for Xbox, so much as what it can do against PlayStation.

And that's really sad, because I don't get how someone can have that much contempt for a plastic box. They want to blame Sony for the past failings of MS, Nintendo, Sega etc. but never once acknowledge the multitude of terrible business mistakes those platform holders made (which for me is saying a lot because outside of those poor business decisions I love & respect systems like the Saturn, Gamecube, OG Xbox etc.) which would have played much bigger roles in their stumbles than anything Sony did.

This is about a video game acquisition. Tell us all what anti-trust actions MS has taken in gaming to warrant blocking this deal. That is what this whole conversation is about.

Actually it's about a bit more than just that. What Microsoft does in gaming is not isolated from what they do as a company in the rest of their sectors, and certain moves they do in gaming may only be possible because of benefits of events in sectors that constitute the lion's share of their revenue & profit. Them simply being able to purchase ABK for example is one such thing; without the cash flow and valuation Azure, Office & Windows brings them, MS would never have the flat-out cash to fund the purchase, or the assets as a company to provide valuation for loans big enough to cover the cost of the deal.

You can't simply ignore that just because of where Microsoft is at specifically in the console gaming market. There is also the green elephant in the room WRT GamePass; MS loves to share subscriber numbers (or at least they did), but never revenue or profit figures. How to they ensure that the revenue the service generates can match or exceed the revenue which games going into the service generate through sales, the portion of which would be lost due to them also going into a subscription service (particularly Day 1), when there are so many ways to get GamePass regularly on the cheap or even free that it significantly suppresses the ARPU? What's the fiscal model for GamePass look like in terms of running & maintaining it as a part of the business? If it doesn't provide healthy revenue or profit margins, how is Microsoft able to continue its operations? Are there other divisions in the company (the revenue & profit those divisions bring) that they leverage to offset or mitigate such a loss-leading strategy with GamePass as a service? Is it currently profitable? Are the revenue amounts relative to operating income high? In what ways have those been achieved? Are those ways reflective of long-term operational business models?

If any combination of those & other pertinent questions lead to a conclusion that Microsoft can only heavily subsidize GamePass as a business model due to the significant revenue & profits of other divisions in the company, then that can create grounds for argument of anti-trust, because it could reflect a pricing model for the service unrealistic to what virtually any other competitor with a similar service would be able to sustain in an otherwise balanced market. I almost want to say that it could be grounds for building a case around allegations of price dumping, but I don't think the FTC would ever go to claiming something like that. Japanese regulators or European regulators (or Chinese regulators), OTOH, may find that an option considering Microsoft is an American company and yes, that does get into some political theater which is annoying but it's potentially an option of something that could pop up :/.

 

[ChiefDada]

http://[URL][URL]https://www.bloomb...n-deal-spread-widens-as-antitrust-fears-mount

[/URL][/URL]

Precisely. And if he used this correct approach, then we could extrapolate that the market assumed a ~30% chance that the deal would close, assuming $65 pre announcement price was fair proxy for value. But of course that would also mean his argument/position goes up in flames.

Lol, like clockwork! According to Hoeg Law math the $73 stock price means investors are 77% positive this deal will pass. There goes Bloomberg again with their FAKE NEWS

 

[CatLady]

That is all that matters. Their games wont be exclusive, if this what they have to say about themselves.

Q. Bungie has future games in development, will they now become PlayStation exclusives?
No. We want the worlds we are creating to extend to anywhere people play games. We will continue to be self-published, creatively independent, and we will continue to drive one, unified Bungie community.

This is on Bungie's website so your statement is factually incorrect there was no live service distinction and I hate to be that guy but Microsoft was extra cagey with the Bethesda purchase about future PlayStation releases so it's not the same, Bungie has been very clear that they will remain multiplatform and ironically it's precisely the reason Microsoft didn't purchase them when they had a chance to before Sony did because they wanted Bungie's future content to be exclusive again I think it's weird nobody talks about that, if I remember correctly it was Jez who spilled the beans in a thread tweet about the negotiations.

This just states that Bungie will be multiplatform which as someone else stated earlier could mean PC and PS. None of this specifies it will be on Xbox in perpetuity and with parity as sony and ryan are demanding of Xbox.

 

[DarkMage619]

Microsoft's response to the CMA a few days ago:



Source: https://assets.publishing.service.g...rosoft_s_response_to_the_Issues_Statement.pdf

Microsoft flat out stated that they plan to use Game Pass to get a leg up on Sony and Nintendo. There is absolutely no chance for Nintendo Switch users to get these games unless Nintendo wants to allow Game Pass on the Switch (which would not be beneficial to Nintendo at all).

Xbox’s Phil Spencer wants Call of Duty on Nintendo Switch

Xbox head Phil Spencer wants to expand the number of platforms the Call of Duty franchise is available on, even citing the Nintendo Switch as a target.

apptrigger.com

Phil Spencer flat out said he wanted to put Call of Duty on Switch. This isn't true today and shows how even Nintendo benefits from this deal. He didn't mention they had to have Game pass just like Switch doesn't need Game pass to get Minecraft. People don't seem to realize MS tends to make moves their competition does not.

 

[SenjutsuSage]

that's kind of ridiculous on so many levels.

Sony didn't buy their way into the industry. They did buy Psygnosis, but that wasn't a huge factor in their success in the industry.

Microsoft has really had almost an equivalent amount of time in the industry. The PS1 came out in essentially 1995 and the OG Xbox came out in 2002 only 7 years later.

Microsoft has since been in the industry for 20 years. We've seen companies rise and fall in the industry in shorter time spans. Sony for example became the market leader within its first generation in the market, where market leaders like Sega were out within 7 years afterward.

The idea that this is the best way Microsoft could spend 70 billion dollars to enrich the industry is a bit of a joke too. It's actually a terrible investment dollar for dollar and reflects how Microsoft is trying to rush their way toward a more prominent position after playing third fiddle for two decades.

Sony's massive financial advantage over its competitors absolutely played a vital role in establishing Playstation as a dominant brand. It would be insane to say it didn't play a part. Sony is a company that was big in electronics, big in music, and big in movies. They had significantly more money to throw around than Nintendo or Sega. The first playstation being CD-ROM based was a major advantage for Sony, and Sony were uniquely equipped to do that more cost effectively than anybody else as a direct result of the type of company they were. It was money that Sony used to secure the Tomb Raider franchise as an exclusive beginning with Tomb Raider 2 despite the first game being on Sega Saturn. You think this money to Square at a crucial time after a big box office bomb didn't also influence things in sony's favor?

https://www.eurogamer.net/article-31275

According to the newswires, Sony is in the final stages of securing a 19% interest in Squaresoft, taking advantage of the company's financial state. The investment of 14.9 billion yen (approximately $124 million) will make Sony the second largest shareholder, second only to Square's founder, and it seems logical that with this will come a change in allegiances. The obvious conclusion to draw here is that for better or worse Square won't be developing RPGs for Nintendo or Microsoft any time soon.

There's nothing wrong with Microsoft being 3rd place. Microsoft just wants to be more competitive, period, and offer better value to its own customers. Activision Blizzard is absolutely not a bad dollar-for-dollar investment by Microsoft. Where did you get that crazy idea when nearly $10 billion of the total $68.7 billion is coming from Activision's net cash?

Don't you know the Activision deal is inclusive of Activision Blizzard cash on hand? Microsoft isn't paying out an actual $68.7 billion lol. Activision had nearly $10 billion cash on hand when the acquisition was announced. That money has since grown. Microsoft's true cost for Activision Blizzard when all is said and done will potentially end up being no more than $58 billion, and potentially as low as $55-56 billion.

Microsoft will acquire Activision Blizzard for $95.00 per share, in an all-cash transaction valued at $68.7 billion, inclusive of Activision Blizzard’s net cash. When the transaction closes, Microsoft will become the world’s third-largest gaming company by revenue, behind Tencent and Sony. The planned acquisition includes iconic franchises from the Activision, Blizzard and King studios like “Warcraft,” “Diablo,” “Overwatch,” “Call of Duty” and “Candy Crush,” in addition to global eSports activities through Major League Gaming. The company has studios around the world with nearly 10,000 employees.

 

[Crispy Gamer]

This just states that Bungie will be multiplatform which as someone else stated earlier could mean PC and PS. None of this specifies it will be on Xbox in perpetuity and with parity as sony and ryan are demanding of Xbox.

Nah I don’t trust Sony's words but I believe Bungie they know their community is huge on Xbox and they've been adamant about being multiplatform on numerous occasions lol I've been stalking them plus the contract is set up for them to be multiplatform so Sony can't intervene or Bungie can just leave they are serious about being independent.

 

[feynoob]

I am gonna go play some games. I cant handle this kids talk. see ya everyone.

 

[CatLady]

Nah I don’t trust Sony's words but I believe Bungie they know their community is huge on Xbox and they've been adamant about being multiplatform on numerous occasions lol I've been stalking them plus the contract is set up for them to be multiplatform so Sony can't intervene or Bungie can just leave they are serious about being independent.

I believe Bungie about 1000 times more than I believe anything coming from "we believe in generations" Ryan and Sony.

I'm just getting really tired of Ryan and the Sony faithful constantly stating unequivocally that CoD won't be on PS even though Phil has stated in every way possible that it will in fact be on PS and has done exactly that for years with Minecraft but at the same time we're just supposed to take Sony at their word that Bungie will be on Xbox.

 

[Warablo]

I just find Sony's arguments appalling and straight up malicious to the CMA. I guess I see trying to put up a fight, but some of their answers is fudging the numbers and trying to mislead the CMA.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

Sony's massive financial advantage over its competitors absolutely played a vital role in establishing Playstation as a dominant brand. It would be insane to say it didn't play a part. Sony is a company that was big in electronics, big in music, and big in movies. They had significantly more money to throw around than Nintendo or Sega. The first playstation being CD-ROM based was a major advantage for Sony, and Sony were uniquely equipped to do that more cost effectively than anybody else as a direct result of the type of company they were. It was money that Sony used to secure the Tomb Raider franchise as an exclusive beginning with Tomb Raider 2 despite the first game being on Sega Saturn. You think this money to Square at a crucial time after a big box office bomb didn't also influence things in sony's favor?

https://www.eurogamer.net/article-31275



There's nothing wrong with Microsoft being 3rd place. Microsoft just wants to be more competitive, period, and offer better value to its own customers. Activision Blizzard is absolutely not a bad dollar-for-dollar investment by Microsoft. Where did you get that crazy idea when nearly $10 billion of the total $68.7 billion is coming from Activision's net cash?

Don't you know the Activision deal is inclusive of Activision Blizzard cash on hand? Microsoft isn't paying out an actual $68.7 billion lol. Activision had nearly $10 billion cash on hand when the acquisition was announced. That money has since grown. Microsoft's true cost for Activision Blizzard when all is said and done will potentially end up being no more than $58 billion, and potentially as low as $55-56 billion.

A lot of revisionist history here. Sony wasn't the first company to put out a gaming console that used CDs and their divisions were not well integrated in the 90s or even early 2000s... Hell they aren't well integrated now.

Sony needed more exclusives at the time because they couldn't compete with nintendo or sega when it came to first party at all. Sony's money to Square came at a time where their relationship was already beginning to fray.

Microsoft doesn't want to compete with Nintendo or Sony. They want a monopoly in the sub/cloud market. It's not their first rodeo. It's literally what they do in every market their in.

We'll see what the stock price is when/if the deal fails.

 

[Torrent of Pork]

Microsoft flat out stated that they plan to use Game Pass to get a leg up on Sony and Nintendo.

Nobody is disputing that, Gamepass is MS's competitive advantage. Imagine if Walmart successfully managed to get the government to shut down Amazon's plans when Prime started to meaningfully eat into their profits?

There is absolutely no chance for Nintendo Switch users to get these games unless Nintendo wants to allow Game Pass on the Switch (which would not be beneficial to Nintendo at all).

Nowhere in that quoted bit you posted did MS claim that the only way they intend to publish ABK games on Switch is through Gamepass.

 

[Iced Arcade]

Microsoft "ok we agree to make sure COD is not exclusive with a forever contract"

*Slides Nintendo the contract to sign*

 

[Torrent of Pork]

We'll see what the stock price is when/if the deal fails.

Probably low enough that you will have quite a few investors very pissed off at Sony for screwing up their exit ramp, Kottick himself chief among them. I can see a world where if Sony wants another COD marketing deal the price just rose significantly.

 

[Crispy Gamer]

I believe Bungie about 1000 times more than I believe anything coming from "we believe in generations" Ryan and Sony.

I'm just getting really tired of Ryan and the Sony faithful constantly stating unequivocally that CoD won't be on PS even though Phil has stated in every way possible that it will in fact be on PS and has done exactly that for years with Minecraft but at the same time we're just supposed to take Sony at their word that Bungie will be on Xbox.

At this point we have enough evidence to not trust what Jim or Phil says or at least be skeptical lol they've both been caught in some whoppers but it's a good point that Minecraft stayed multiplatform but the next ES/Skyrim/Fallout will be exclusive those are huge traditional multiplatform franchises so there's examples in support of both sides of the argument. The deal will most likely go through so these arguments will probably be mute anyway but going forward I would like game journalists to have some intellectual curiosity about these big purchases because I think consolidation will be the downfall of the industry I don't want to see MS and Sony buying up 3rd party publishers that's just a road to nowhere....could you imagine Nintendo buying up publishers and locking away franchises on that low powered hardware

 

[Mibu no ookami]

Probably low enough that you will have quite a few investors very pissed off at Sony for screwing up their exit ramp, Kottick himself chief among them. I can see a world where if Sony wants another COD marketing deal the price just rose significantly.

That isn't really how business works.

Activision is one of if not Sony's best customers and the reverse is also true. Sony is one of Activision's best customers. They have a mutual relationship. COD marketing deals help both companies.

Also no one will take a bigger L if this deal falls through than Bobby Kotick, who will almost certainly see himself ousted if it fails.

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

That isn't really how business works.

Activision is one of if not Sony's best customers and the reverse is also true. Sony is one of Activision's best customers. They have a mutual relationship. COD marketing deals help both companies.

Not to mention many of the shareholders with big exit packages are no longer actively part of executive management.

Kotick will have no influence on future marketing deals

If the deal falls through, activision will simply operate in its best interest as an independent company; if that means more Sony co marketing deals, then so be it. There won’t be any escalating prices based on sour grapes.

 

[Torrent of Pork]

That isn't really how business works.

Activision is one of if not Sony's best customers and the reverse is also true. Sony is one of Activision's best customers. They have a mutual relationship. COD marketing deals help both companies.

Sure, but the exact same thing could be said about COD and MS during the 360 days, and now you have a bunch of fabulously wealthy people who just took a hit to their net worth.

 

[Torrent of Pork]

Not to mention many of the shareholders with big exit packages are no longer actively part of executive management.

Kotick will have no influence on future marketing deals

If the deal falls through, activision will simply operate in its best interest as an independent company; if that means more Sony co marketing deals, then so be it. There won’t be any escalating prices based on sour grapes.

You expect me to believe Kottick, the CEO who owns a hair under 25% of the company, and is the largest shareholder, will somehow have no say over ABK if Sony tanks the deal?

 

[feynoob]

Not to mention many of the shareholders with big exit packages are no longer actively part of executive management.

Kotick will have no influence on future marketing deals

If the deal falls through, activision will simply operate in its best interest as an independent company; if that means more Sony co marketing deals, then so be it. There won’t be any escalating prices based on sour grapes.

I doubt the relationship between Sony and Activision would be the same, if the deal is axed.

This is $68b exist ticket. There is no way, they would have a good relationship with Sony after that. Even if CoD sells well on their system.

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

You expect me to believe Kottick, the CEO who owns a hair under 25% of the company, and is the largest shareholder, will somehow have no say over ABK if Sony tanks the deal?

From an operational standpoint I don’t believe Kotick would try and influence current management to give favorable terms to competitors for marketing deals.

If Sony still wants that relationship and has the best offer, they extend.

No sour grapes.

I doubt the relationship between Sony and Activision would be the same, if the deal is axed.

This is $68b exist ticket. There is no way, they would have a good relationship with Sony after that. Even if CoD sells well on their system.

If the deal falls through then Activision reverts back to being more dependent on a good relationship with Sony, they sell the most through the PlayStation ecosystem.

So again, sour grapes won’t be a factor. Shareholders will move on and continue doing what’s in the best interest as an independent company

 

[IFireflyl]

Xbox’s Phil Spencer wants Call of Duty on Nintendo Switch

Xbox head Phil Spencer wants to expand the number of platforms the Call of Duty franchise is available on, even citing the Nintendo Switch as a target.

apptrigger.com

Phil Spencer flat out said he wanted to put Call of Duty on Switch. This isn't true today and shows how even Nintendo benefits from this deal. He didn't mention they had to have Game pass just like Switch doesn't need Game pass to get Minecraft. People don't seem to realize MS tends to make moves their competition does not.

This is another perfect example of Phil Spencer's ridiculous P.R. statements. He says one thing to the general public, and then he tells regulators something that is completely at odds with his initial statement. You're ridding Phil so hard I can no longer tell if his balls are in adamsapple 's mouth, or if they're in yours.

Microsoft responded to the CMA three days ago and said bringing Activision's games to Game Pass is how they plan to compete with Nintendo and Sony. They can't compete with Game Pass while simultaneously giving the game away on other platforms. If they plan on competing with Nintendo and Sony by putting Activision games on Game Pass then the only option Microsoft has is to keep Activision games off of non-Game Pass consoles. Otherwise they're not competing.

 

[IFireflyl]

Nobody is disputing that, Gamepass is MS's competitive advantage. Imagine if Walmart successfully managed to get the government to shut down Amazon's plans when Prime started to meaningfully eat into their profits?

Nowhere in that quoted bit you posted did MS claim that the only way they intend to publish ABK games on Switch is through Gamepass.

See my previous post.

 

[thismeinteil]

There’s very few notable and high-caliber releases that the two platforms (could have) access to with Japanese market appeal such as Final Fantasy.

Sony leveraging their position to secure these deals ensures they don’t advance in these markets in any meaningful way.

Even if an unhinged Microsoft paid significant overs for a likewise deal, there’s no way it’s worth the reputation damage Square Enix would face with all the online petitions and angry death threats mailed to them.

There are far more markets MS could have expanded into besides Japan. Whose fault is it that they didn't? People seem to forget that MS and Sony were practically tied after the PS3/360 gen. Sony stumbled hard after the launch of the expensive PS3. They also didn't have a really good exclusive for the console until a year into its lifespan. This allowed MS to take advantage of the situation and push the 360 to heights their Xbox hadn't been before, including Japan. And a lot of that push had to do with buying up exclusives, whether timed or real, as well as exclusive DLC. It also lead to some franchises that were usually associated with PS being launched on the Xbox for the first time. But, Sony didn't just whine about their situation, and instead worked hard to right the ship. They came out with a Slim model to lower the price to an acceptable level. They improved their online service until it was on par with Live, while also rolling out PS Plus. More importantly, they focused on coming out with banger after banger in terms of exclusives, whether 1st party or 3rd. They went on to claim 2nd place that gen and continued this success into the next gen.

So, how did Xbox handle their stumble with XBO? Well, they did try to constantly have sales for the XBO, so it was usually cheaper than the PS4, so that is a plus. However, when it came to games, they dropped the ball. Hard. Their studios were/are obviously poorly run. Many games got delayed or cancelled. Many of the games that did release were mediocre. One promised remake was instead released as a quick remaster cash grab. And since MS was obviously not spending as much on Xbox at the time, they weren't buying as many marketing deals and exclusives, timed or real. To make matters worse when it came to PR, instead of admitting to this fact or simply keeping quiet about it, Spencer decided to whine about it constantly that gen, saying ridiculous things like exclusivity deals were bad for the industry and unfair, even though he still made some himself.

Now, Xbox didn't right the ship for last gen, but did they at least learn from losing bad last gen to fix things for the next one? Nope. The problems still exist. They couldn't even get out any big launch exclusives, partly because the big game they were planning to launch, Halo, was delayed due to it looking like a remastered 360 game. 2021 was a little better, though Halo still launched in a poor state, missing promised features. 2022 was another drought year. And as of two years in, they are getting outsold 2:1, again. Their solution was simple, we can't compete, so we'll just buy up the industry.

Now, the point stands, MS only has themselves to blame for the situation they find themselves. If they had fixed the problems with management that clearly still exist, instead of finding a scapegoat and trying to sell their console on PR and promises, they could be an actual threat to Sony without having to buy up half the industry. Personally, I don't think they really should be rewarded for their incompetence by regulators going easy on them as they attempt to buy an industry they have failed to win, which in turn punishes those who backed the other company that fixed most of its mistakes and continues to put out exclusive banger after exclusive banger.

 

[Torrent of Pork]

From an operational standpoint I don’t believe Kotick would try and influence current management to give favorable terms to competitors for marketing deals.

If Sony still wants that relationship and has the best offer, they extend.

No sour grapes.



If the deal falls through then Activision reverts back to being more dependent on a good relationship with Sony, they sell the most through the PlayStation ecosystem.

So again, sour grapes won’t be a factor. Shareholders will move on and continue doing what’s in the best interest as an independent company

Where are you getting the notion from that Kotick will not be the CEO of ABK if the deal falls through? He is current top management right now, he will continue to be so if ABK remains independent.

And he will have personally lost a shit-ton of money, along with the rest of the Board, when the stock tanks.

 

[reksveks]

MS said they can’t make a forever deal for COD as anything can happen in the future. But as Sony has shown with the Bungie acquisition it IS possible to buy a multi platform developer and let the business continue unchanged post purchase. And without MS having to sign a forever deal to continue getting Bungie games. It’s not impossible for MS to do the same if they really wanted.

Like Mojang, MS and regulators didn't kick up a fuss.

That's the difference.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

Sure, but the exact same thing could be said about COD and MS during the 360 days, and now you have a bunch of fabulously wealthy people who just took a hit to their net worth.

How is this relevant to the comment I responded to?

 

[Torrent of Pork]

This is another perfect example of Phil Spencer's ridiculous P.R. statements. He says one thing to the general public, and then he tells regulators something that is completely at odds with his initial statement. You're ridding Phil so hard I can no longer tell if his balls are in adamsapple 's mouth, or if they're in yours.

Microsoft responded to the CMA three days ago and said bringing Activision's games to Game Pass is how they plan to compete with Nintendo and Sony. They can't compete with Game Pass while simultaneously giving the game away on other platforms. If they plan on competing with Nintendo and Sony by putting Activision games on Game Pass then the only option Microsoft has is to keep Activision games off of non-Game Pass consoles. Otherwise they're not competing.

Or they can strengthen Gamepass with ABK games, while simultaneously making money from those who desire to purchase them full price on other platforms.

This post reads like a Glenn Beck whiteboard segment back when he was a raging alcoholic.

 

[adamsapple]

Microsoft responded to the CMA three days ago and said bringing Activision's games to Game Pass is how they plan to compete with Nintendo and Sony. They can't compete with Game Pass while simultaneously giving the game away on other platforms. If they plan on competing with Nintendo and Sony by putting Activision games on Game Pass then the only option Microsoft has is to keep Activision games off of non-Game Pass consoles. Otherwise they're not competing.

They literally offered a 10 year commitment of releases. The game(s) can be on game pass and also be offered to other consoles, there's nothing preventing from that happening.

 

[IFireflyl]

Or they can strengthen Gamepass with ABK games, while simultaneously making money from those who desire to purchase them full price on other platforms.

This post reads like a Glenn Beck whiteboard segment back when he was a raging alcoholic.

And if that's the case then regulators have a very real chance of shutting down this deal since Microsoft is already the industry leader for gaming subscription services. Acquiring one of the largest publishers in the world and widening the gap in the gaming subscription sector is certainly a concern for this acquisition.

Either way you try to spin this, Microsoft shit the bed with this statement. Either they plan on being the bad guys by keeping the games off of other platforms, or they plan on being the bad guys by vastly increasing the distance between them and the number two competitor in the subscription realm.

 

[Torrent of Pork]

How is this relevant to the comment I responded to?

My point was that people act irrationally when you start messing with their money, wealthy people even moreso, and a lower player base didn't stop ABK from switching up their marketing deal last time when they signed with Sony.

 

[reksveks]

Again, it seems the problem of this deal is cloud gaming. FTC legal case might be around this area.
R reksveks this is what the ftc would focus right?

http://[URL][URL]https://www.bloomb...g-shot-ftc-settlement?leadSource=uverify wall

[/URL][/URL]


Idas might provide us more info this weekend. So sit tight everyone.

Yeah, I don't think they are going to end up focusing on console gaming and it's going to end up around cloud gaming and game subscriptions.

The ftc would have a much stronger case in those markets if they are able to successfully argue it is indeed a separate market.

The other question that I have is whether the FTC are just as focused on COD and its impact on cloud streaming and multi game subscription services as the CMA are.

 

[IFireflyl]

Yeah, I don't think they are going to end up focusing on console gaming and it's going to end up around cloud gaming and game subscriptions.

The ftc would have a much stronger case in those markets if they are able to successfully argue it is indeed a separate market.

The other question that I have is whether the FTC are just as focused on COD as the CMA are.

It is ridiculous how much Sony have focused on Call of Duty. Sure, that's a big money-maker. But they could have formed much better arguments by widening the issue.

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

Where are you getting the notion from that Kotick will not be the CEO of ABK if the deal falls through? He is current top management right now, he will continue to be so if ABK remains independent.

And he will have personally lost a shit-ton of money, along with the rest of the Board, when the stock tanks.

He’s stepping down if it goes through and he’s lost the confidence of his employees.

It’s doubtful he remains CEO given how tarnished he’s become if the deal doesn’t go through

Yes, he would have lost a lot of money. That’s in the past. He’ll stand to lose even more money if they somehow sabotage the relationship with their largest partner